Date of Filing: 11-08-2016 Date of Final Order: 24-03-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the Complainant as culled out from the record is that the Complainant purchased one M-Tech mobile handset from the O.P shop on 17/08/2015 bearing Model No. ACE5 by depositing Rs.5,450/-. The said mobile handset started problem for functioning just after 1 month from the date of purchase. Thereafter, the Complainant rushed to the O.P shop for repairing the same but the O.P did not pay any heed towards the Complainant. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the present case before this Forum, for seeking redress and reliefs also praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to pay Rs.5,450/- as purchased value of the said mobile handset and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and harassment.
It appears from the case record that the notice was duly served upon the O.P but the O.P did not turn up despite receiving the notice for which this case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully also heard the Ex-parte argument. Perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant along with original documents.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased a mobile handset from the O.P shop against payment of Rs.5,450/- for his personal use as such he is a consumer of the O.P as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
The place of business of the O.P is within this district and the complaint value of this case is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present dispute.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased one M-Tech mobile handset on 17/08/2015 being Model No. ACE5 from the O.P shop. The case of the Complainant is that the said mobile did not function properly just after one month from the date of purchase. The Complainant went to the O.P with the mobile set for repairing but the O.P did not pay any heed.
The Complainant by swearing an affidavit stated his allegation against the O.P It is fact that the Complainant purchased the said handset from the O.P shop, moved to the O.P shop for redress but failed.
On perusal the case record, it appears that the notice was duly served upon the O.P. One D. Gupta received the same on behalf of the O.P Shop but the O.P did not turn up which seems that the O.P has nothing to challenge the present dispute also he did not care about the notice served upon it by this Forum.
In this case, the Complainant purchased the mobile handset from the O.P shop i.e. Radha Optical, R.N. Road, Cooch Behar. On perusal the Tax Invoice, it appears that the O.P deals with all type of Mobile & Accessories and sale & service of ophthalmic opticians. This O.P is not the service provider of the mobile handset. However, in this case, the Complainant after noticing the dispute in the mobile handset went to the O.P from whom he purchased the set. The O.P did not co-operate with the Complainant to sort out the problem. The O.P had the duty to send the mobile set to the service provider for proper service. As a Dealer & Seller, he cannot evade its liability. By not providing service or not giving proper advice as to the repair of the mobile in question, the O.P. proved his deficiency in service.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant purchased the mobile set with a desire to use the set smoothly but he frustrated due to non-functioning the mobile set within a very short period of purchase. The O.P being a Dealer & Seller also failed to take any step to make the mobile set usefull. Due to indifferent attitude and inaction of the O.P, the Complainant suffered from mental pain & agonies.
The Complainant purchased the set on 17/08/2015. P.roper service has not been given to the Complainant by the O.P after dispute arisen in the set. The O.P be directed to return the price of the Mobile hand set to avoid the second bout of litigation and it will be met proper relief to the Complainant and fair justice.
In the light of foregoing discussion, the deficiency in service of the O.P is established for which the Complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation.
All the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Thus, the complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimony.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the present Case No. CC/79/2016 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte but in part with cost of Rs.1,000/- against the O.P.
The O.P is hereby directed to return back Rs. 5,450/-by receiving the disputed set within 30 days. The Complainant do get an award of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for his mental pain & agonies.
The entire order shall be complied by the O.P within 30 days from the date of this order i/d the O.P shall have to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
